It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What you have to believe in order to be a 'non-believer

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 09:37 AM
link   
Dear Group,

I am a believer. I state that clearly and up front so you can all know where I stand before reading on.


This is dedicated to any and all skeptics..ones who refuse to believe in UFO's, alien life, etc...and especially those who continue to recite the party-lime rhetoric and generally using the implausible to deny the' impossible'

I will not bamboozle you with facts and counter-facts..I will not cite 'secret'sources or inside knowledge gleaned from 15 years of gov't work..nor prophess any revelations on the subject delivered to me in dreams or through prayer by angelic beings or divine revelation..but still I hope by the time you finish this letter your eyes might be opened to what has been staring back at you ..and for centuries.
And I will use only 3 topics to illustrate the point I am trying to make to each and every 'skeptic'who reads these lines.

Topic # 1..The Belgian UFO's and the recent Mexican Airforce sightings":
I post here three randomly chosen sites to use as background for this one. It would be enormously helpful if you [actually] took the time to read them..and I make special mentiuon of the third link which is from 2002..3 years after the initial sightings which so upset the belgian air force and their minister of defense...
ufologie.net...
www.geocities.com...
and THIS ONE; www.ufoevidence.org...

Here's what the 'non-believers' have to believe....
- That three seperate radar installations using different systems all made the same mistake, identifying triangular objects moving silently and taking off at impossible speeds in defiance of all known laws of engine powered flight and being identified as almost as large as battleships.
- That senior air-force officers, pilots and the Belgian ministry of defense were a not aware of US plans to deploy TR-3B's over their territory.
[I cite the TR-3B's as they seem to be one of the more commonly referred to 'experimental'vehicles the US has been working on in secret]
- That the U.S. would indeed, deploy highly experimental craft, at night, over the most densly populated region of western europe and..
-That there was some military purpose served by such deployment
-That we do indeed have a whole array of said experimental type vehicles which are light years beyond the capabliites of our en emies and closest allies and that we built them for..what, exactly? Combat applications? Spy flights?

In none of the releases anywhere to be found on TR-3B's..or indeed any other similarly cited so-called 'black-ops' project is there any mention of the possible combat or civilian applications such aircraft would have..so why build them?

Note the Belgian air force sightings took place in 1989..and were repeated in 2002..so even if I bought all the doubters'doubts in 1989, I would be a fool to continue to believe the party line 3 years later.

Further to this discussion is the preponderance of ancient classic art found today in museums in which UFO's described in most similar terms to the Triangles over Belgium..some were even comissioned by the Church;

www.marsearthconnection.com...

I don't offer it as conclusive proof of anythin g other than that we have pictorial evidence of a sort which confirms or records eye-witness accounts of strange lights, discs and triangles in the sky which pre-date TR-3B's by centuries.
So what were our ancestors seeing..illusions? I bet if they'd had radar in those days our takes on these triangles and their origins would be somewhat less skeptical.

And that brings me to topic #2
The Mexican Air Force UFO sightings of 2004

www.ufoevidence.org...
www.ufoevidence.org...
www.virtuallystrange.net...

Believers will cite the video and the film..non-believers will cite the official explanations..but in this case where are the 'official declarations"?
Again in order to disblieve the mexican air force pilots..and the experts hired to validate or the film means you would have to believe ...
-That we routinely violate our neighbour's air-space without fair warning while risking the possible hot-friendly-fire of pilots trying to follow and perhaps shoot down one of our most secret experimental craft. One that must have cost millions..and one..again..with no earthly combat or civilian role. One that even NASA is unaware of.
-That someone figured Belgium was too far to go to scare frindly pilots in combat craft and we should better do that kind of thing closer to home..and that Texas, Nevada, new mexico, Wyoming and Utah are not remote enough or sparsely populated enough to test fly these neat machines and that we gain some sort of advantage flying them over Mexicao and without letting them know in advance.
-That the mexican air force commander in chief was demoted and reposted because his pilots couldn't catch the UFO or because he exposed america's meddling in mexican air space using vehicles that ordinary pilots mistook for UFO's...and/or
-That mexican air force pilots by definition are silly or incompetent as proved by their silly reaction to a couple of TR-3b's overflying their airspace....and/or
-That George Bush does not trust the mexicans...else he would have told them we were going to buzz them and not risk having our new toy shot down.

Lastly I turn to the Phoenix lights 1997..which have also been seen in Toronto and many times over Israel.
To believe in the flare theeory..and that is the only one put forward by the 'non-believers', is to believe...
-That we not only deployed massive flares overone of our own brightly lit cities as part of some scheduled military exercise but that we also then went and flared the skies of Toronto...as well as that of our closest military ally...Israel..again without regard to the panic it may cause civilians on the ground..and without informing either government of our intentions to carry out a military exercise over their air-space.
-That we have developed an entirely new kind of smoke-less, parachutless flare which can hang for minutes and which we have yet to see deployed even as recently as in our Iraq war.
-That although proven massively effective in getting people's attention and lighting up the sky as far back as 1997..we still didn't deploy the same type of flares in 203 when wqe invaded Iraq for the 2nd time...ones we supposedly already had in our arsenals and had been training with in 1997.

Now I ask you...is that really what you non-believers believe?

-Sincerely
-shai




posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 09:49 AM
link   
As a believer myself, let me play devils advocate here a bit. All the points you bring up have been hashed around here quite a bit, and it is obvious that they are all good points of EVIDENCE. But they still do not provide hard PROOF.

There is a huge difference between PROOF and EVIDENCE. You could call ATS a courtroom of sorts, and what we do here everyday is provide the best evidence possible. Now, we members, being the jury, need to take that EVIDENCE, and decide whether to accept it or deny it as TRUTH or FICTION.

The cold hard facts are that we may never have anything called PROOF. We will most likely keep coming across fantastic peices of evidence, but until the ET's themselves take a much more active role in their disclosure, I'm afraid that is all we will have to go on.

So, being a previous non-believer myself, I tend to understand why some may not be willing to take the step into the believing catagory. Non-believers too will admit that there is good EVIDENCE out there, but not enough to convict.


On a personal note, it is my opinion that the Mexican UFO video is the best piece of modern EVIDENCE we have.



posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 09:59 AM
link   
I think it is important to make the distinction that UFO does not necessarily mean it is of Alien origin.

I truely believe that somewhere out there there is another form of life in the universe. I think also that there is a small chance that they have the capability for space travel etc.
I also feel that there is an even smaller chance that they have visited Earth.
I have seen some pretty convincing photos and videos of ufo's.
But as I said before UFO does not necessarily mean it is of alien origin.I would love to believe that aliens visit Earth on the regular basis that they are proclaimed to, but until I see more conclusive evidence I will remain a skeptic.



posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 10:48 AM
link   
Believers usually have not seen for themselves what they purport to believe, rather taking the observations of others and commentaries as enough.

When you see a spacecraft, a distinctive and clear machine 60 to 100 feet from you that moves quietly with multicolored lights on its bottom side in an urban area where hundreds of people could have also seen it, then chances are that you are a "non-believer."

Why is that so?

You no longer rely upon stories from others. You know what you know And you no longer have to believe anything to become a "non-believer." It is burnished into your life experience, your very being, so what is to believe and have faith about?



posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 11:32 AM
link   
Ihave always believed in Alien life. It seems to me it nearly impossible for there not to be with all the stars in the sky and the age of the universe.
However its only been recently I started to believe that Aliens have been visiting Earth. Before I could not believe that a Alien society capable of traveling billions of light years to our planet would do anything that would change the course of our own growth. I had thought if such an advanced race was able to become advance to that level with out destroying them selves first would be a responsible species.

Now after hearing the opinions of other ATSers I'm not so sure visiting aliens would be responsible. They could be just as 'evil' as our Earthly nations that want to take recourses away from other countries.
Aside from that, Aliens life would be so alien how could I assume anything about their nature. They could have personality traits completely unknown to us.

Still today though when I see a UFO image or a Alien body pic I assume its a fake before its real. Human nature is something we can understand and people will fake these things. It is in fact very easy to make fake pics as shown on this thread.



posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 12:08 PM
link   
None believers generally believe in other things. Usually those who believe in God, books, media, stars, or in their own ego, simply cannot accept anything way too interesting, like the existance of aliens. In other words, in order to be a non believer, something must feed your mind regularly from a different source.

Those people who don't recieve regular grainwash, tend to believe as time passes by. Smart people don't even allow any disturbing information flow to pass through, they simply rely on their own judgement. This way, you can become a believer, but you'll only believe selected infos, not everything others feed you with.



posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 01:11 PM
link   
Let me state this.

I too am a believer...and there is some good evidence out there.

However, there are some problems with the footage in question.


-That three seperate radar installations using different systems all made the same mistake, identifying triangular objects moving silently and taking off at impossible speeds in defiance of all known laws of engine powered flight and being identified as almost as large as battleships.


With the little we do know or suspect of the TR-3B, it is an advanced aircraft design, utilizing an advanced propulsion system...much like the U-2, Blackbird, Nighthawk, or Raptor was before their official announcement. All of these planes were responsible for NUMEROUS UFO reports before being revealed to the public. We already know that the US has aircraft that can not only hide from radar, but jam it, cause it to malfunction, etc. It's entirely more believable that this is the case, rather than a flying unknown battleship or mothership.


- That senior air-force officers, pilots and the Belgian ministry of defense were a not aware of US plans to deploy TR-3B's over their territory.
[I cite the TR-3B's as they seem to be one of the more commonly referred to 'experimental'vehicles the US has been working on in secret]


Why not? We've done it several times in the past with black project aircraft. Why should now be any different. We flew Nighthawks over Baghdad before GW1, and numerous Blackbird flights over friendly countries without telling them.


- That the U.S. would indeed, deploy highly experimental craft, at night, over the most densly populated region of western europe and..


Again, we've been there, done that...so why not now?


-That there was some military purpose served by such deployment


Sure, there could be a myriad of reasons... Radar jamming temporarily malfunctioning, altering of flight plan, mechanical trouble, causing it to go low, etc. or even testing capabilities. Hard to test stealth if they know you're coming...


-That we do indeed have a whole array of said experimental type vehicles which are light years beyond the capabliites of our en emies and closest allies and that we built them for..what, exactly? Combat applications? Spy flights?


SOMETHING has replaced the retired Blackbird, and I just can't believe it's satellites alone. One has to WAIT for satellites to be in position... Not so with spyplanes. We had numerous U-2 planes before announcing them, same with the Blackbird. Hell, in GW1 I remember them saying we had something like a dozen Nighthawks in the area...total BS, as I chatted with pop looking out at the tarmac of more than that number, and that was just in Yemen
Since we don't know too much about the Blackbird's successor, or the TR-3B if that's what role it has, it's difficult to speculate, but it would make sense that spy reconaissance would be the mission profile to fill. A silenced, high-altitude, VTOL, stealthy craft would fit that mission profile very well indeed, with the added bonus of using a UFO coverstory if spotted.



posted on Jan, 26 2005 @ 06:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
Let me state this.

I too am a believer...and there is some good evidence out there.

However, there are some problems with the footage in question.


-That three seperate radar installations using different systems all made the same mistake, identifying triangular objects moving silently and taking off at impossible speeds in defiance of all known laws of engine powered flight and being identified as almost as large as battleships.


With the little we do know or suspect of the TR-3B, it is an advanced aircraft design, utilizing an advanced propulsion system...much like the U-2, Blackbird, Nighthawk, or Raptor was before their official announcement. All of these planes were responsible for NUMEROUS UFO reports before being revealed to the public. We already know that the US has aircraft that can not only hide from radar, but jam it, cause it to malfunction, etc. It's entirely more believable that this is the case, rather than a flying unknown battleship or mothership.


- That senior air-force officers, pilots and the Belgian ministry of defense were a not aware of US plans to deploy TR-3B's over their territory.
[I cite the TR-3B's as they seem to be one of the more commonly referred to 'experimental'vehicles the US has been working on in secret]


Why not? We've done it several times in the past with black project aircraft. Why should now be any different. We flew Nighthawks over Baghdad before GW1, and numerous Blackbird flights over friendly countries without telling them.


- That the U.S. would indeed, deploy highly experimental craft, at night, over the most densly populated region of western europe and..


Again, we've been there, done that...so why not now?


-That there was some military purpose served by such deployment


Sure, there could be a myriad of reasons... Radar jamming temporarily malfunctioning, altering of flight plan, mechanical trouble, causing it to go low, etc. or even testing capabilities. Hard to test stealth if they know you're coming...


-That we do indeed have a whole array of said experimental type vehicles which are light years beyond the capabliites of our en emies and closest allies and that we built them for..what, exactly? Combat applications? Spy flights?


SOMETHING has replaced the retired Blackbird, and I just can't believe it's satellites alone. One has to WAIT for satellites to be in position... Not so with spyplanes. We had numerous U-2 planes before announcing them, same with the Blackbird. Hell, in GW1 I remember them saying we had something like a dozen Nighthawks in the area...total BS, as I chatted with pop looking out at the tarmac of more than that number, and that was just in Yemen
Since we don't know too much about the Blackbird's successor, or the TR-3B if that's what role it has, it's difficult to speculate, but it would make sense that spy reconaissance would be the mission profile to fill. A silenced, high-altitude, VTOL, stealthy craft would fit that mission profile very well indeed, with the added bonus of using a UFO coverstory if spotted.



Dear Gazrok,

Since yours was by far the most interesting reply I'll use my answer to you to answer the others as well.
First, I am glad you state candidly and up front... that you, too are a 'believer'..and as such I respect the points made in your post which you rightly raised.
Here's my reply....
Point #1
As for experimental planes being falsely identified as UFO's..no argument..some were..but let's look at the point a little bit closer..ok? What is not common knowledge but easily confirmable is that, unlike every other airplane/jet or combat flyer..including our unmanned spy platforms mentioned in your letter..the stealth bomber and fighter were built and delievred for service without a prototype for either having been field tested.
That speaks to me of reverse engineering..and no that is not 'proof'of anything specific, but does raise questions..how in the late 70's early 80's did we get the notion to spend billions on vehicles to be delivered to front-line units ..vehicles which never had prototypes and that had never been tested?

As for the TR-3B's and similar vehicles..no one to this day has mentioned the raíson d etre'for this havng been built ..but that is not the point...
Point # 2
Yes we do have vehicles designed to do just that..jam signals and confuse ground radar..but that doesn't explain why they are deployed over friendly capitals without notice..nor does it answer the main question..what would happen if one crashed [as so many stealth fighters did] over civilian areas?
Particularly in the case of Mexico..and belgium..where we do not have sovereignty and would have to come up with some awfully good excuses as we tried to retrieve our experimental craft.
Nor does it posit any reason why Brussells would be suitable for such an exercise..at night, and where the triangle lights were bound to be noticed.. pretty stupid for a spy platform, don't you think?
The other platforms you mentioned were all approved by congress and all had identifiable combat related missions..like the Blackhawk for instance...
Now maybe we do randomly test these things against unaware pilots of friendly forces just to see if they are as good as we think they are...but then..if these vehicles do what the 'critics and non-believers'claim, then why not notify our allies and invite them to tests..why terrorize and demoralize the friendlies?

And as for your comment that it is hard to test stealth if they know you are coming...did you mena that? The ONLY way to truly test if your stealth tech does work is to announce you are coming and challenge the designated opponents[allies] to see if they can pick us out in their radar...which also avoids the risk of being shot down by panicked pilots given no advance warning that this is an EXERCISE.

I have no doubt that some vehicles were created simply too add credibility to official denials of alien craft..and that still avoids the real question..why not tell folks.."we're playing with new systems and you may see some strange lights next week over your city..but hey..no worries, it's just us and we ain't attacking or menacing our neighbours..[it s just that our country isn't big enough to test these in...']
Why not a cover story BEFORE the fact?
[NOTE_ see my thread on the differences between a cover story and CYA].

Lastly I would like to get a reality check going on here as to what constitutes 'proof' per se.
Since there is so much in the archaeogical record, including ancient aerial maps and maps showing the anatarctic with rivers..way before we knew that there were indeed rivers under the massive ice pack of anatarctica..and statues of astronauts centuries on exhibit in museums that date back to antiquity...the UFO art..the spirals found in Russia...and the writings in each and every one of our holy texts which speak of extra-terrestial phenomena bearing all the hallmarks of recent sightings and stretching back thousands of years...
www.anomalies-unlimited.com...

www.marsearthconnection.com...

[BTW here's the link to the unexplained spirals: www.unexplainable.net... ]

But again..what would constitute 'proof' to the non-believers..what would they have to see or hear and who from before they would agree that the evidence IS the proof..it is certainly not the Bible..even though most non-believers are beholden to an Abrahamic code and text ..a text whch clearly speaks of alien visitors tampering in man's affairs..
It is not artifacts falling outside of conventional theory..it is not the sworn statements of senioir military officials in friendly governments..including our own..it is not the sceintists who can clearly demonstrate the likelihood of alien contact given their understandings of how things work in space and time...and in some cases not even their closest relatives..or their own eyes..
So what would it take to convince the unconvinceable?

Why won't the non-believers believe?
I know they all go looking for some , increasingly implausible cover stories and CYA stories, half-baked science long dispoven or the old chestnut 'everybody knows this is not true' excuse..but why?
That has always puzzled me..this urge to not believe..

-Sincerely
-Shai



posted on Jan, 26 2005 @ 08:22 AM
link   
To answer your points...


Point #1
As for experimental planes being falsely identified as UFO's..no argument..some were..but let's look at the point a little bit closer..ok? What is not common knowledge but easily confirmable is that, unlike every other airplane/jet or combat flyer..including our unmanned spy platforms mentioned in your letter..the stealth bomber and fighter were built and delievred for service without a prototype for either having been field tested.
That speaks to me of reverse engineering..and no that is not 'proof'of anything specific, but does raise questions..how in the late 70's early 80's did we get the notion to spend billions on vehicles to be delivered to front-line units ..vehicles which never had prototypes and that had never been tested?


They had prototypes. I believe the prototype for the U-2 was called the A-12, but I'd have to check to be sure.... There were different ideas for the Blackbird too, including one with a detachable drone. With most modern testing, and computers, they can do things such as wind tunnel tests, etc. without building a prototype of various ideas. Also, all of these planes were prototypes before being officially announced....and field tested. Technically, the U-2 was never really "production" aircraft. I also share your belief that at least some reverse engineering was involved, at least in the use of the materials, etc. for stealth. These were never front-line aircraft....they had specific mission profiles. The Nighthawk and Raptor are just a front-line extension of the idea, but the U-2 and Blackbird were MADE for spy missions. No doubt, so would the TR-3B if it exists....


Point # 2
Yes we do have vehicles designed to do just that..jam signals and confuse ground radar..but that doesn't explain why they are deployed over friendly capitals without notice..nor does it answer the main question..what would happen if one crashed [as so many stealth fighters did] over civilian areas?
Particularly in the case of Mexico..and belgium..where we do not have sovereignty and would have to come up with some awfully good excuses as we tried to retrieve our experimental craft.
Nor does it posit any reason why Brussells would be suitable for such an exercise..at night, and where the triangle lights were bound to be noticed.. pretty stupid for a spy platform, don't you think?
The other platforms you mentioned were all approved by congress and all had identifiable combat related missions..like the Blackhawk for instance...
Now maybe we do randomly test these things against unaware pilots of friendly forces just to see if they are as good as we think they are...but then..if these vehicles do what the 'critics and non-believers'claim, then why not notify our allies and invite them to tests..why terrorize and demoralize the friendlies?


The Blackhawk is a helicopter, but I'm assuming you speak of the Blackbird. And just who's airspace do you think it crossed on it's missions? It often crossed friendly nations, make no mistake. While the plan is likely to NOT be seen while on such missions, things go wrong.


And as for your comment that it is hard to test stealth if they know you are coming...did you mena that? The ONLY way to truly test if your stealth tech does work is to announce you are coming and challenge the designated opponents[allies] to see if they can pick us out in their radar...which also avoids the risk of being shot down by panicked pilots given no advance warning that this is an EXERCISE.


Yes I meant it. When you have a plane that can outrun missiles, and fly out of range of guns and SAMs, you really don't care all that much about it if they detect you. You just want to test at what POINT they actually detect you, so you know the craft's limits in regards to the defenses. This was done all the time by the Blackbird in Europe. Often, it would be chalked up to another UFO sighting, as the pilots would never catch the intruding plane or even get it on radar or visual.



posted on Jan, 26 2005 @ 02:41 PM
link   
Weird, can't edit for some reason...

anyhow... a great thread here at ATS on the TR-3B, supposing it of course exists....

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jan, 26 2005 @ 02:48 PM
link   
I am not a believer. But because I believe in God and not aliens should not be cause to consider me narrow minded or full of ego. We all have varying beliefs that collide and interact with others all the time. I do not believe you can compare faith to aliens. Faith is in the heart and like the wind, you don't have to see it to feel it and know it is there. Aliens are things that have been discussed for centuries but real proof of such has yet to really been established. Aliens are like science.......it needs to be proven because that is what science does......proves things. Religion is faith and it does not have to prove anything.



posted on Jan, 26 2005 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shai
This is dedicated to any and all skeptics..ones who refuse to believe in UFO's, alien life, etc...and especially those who continue to recite the party-lime rhetoric and generally using the implausible to deny the' impossible'


I would love to be a believer and in all probability there is other life somewhere in the universe, BUT I have not seen substantial proof to believe that extraterrestrials are on this planet.

Proof of a UFO in in a video only proves that there was an object, that I can not identify, in the sky. It does nothing to prove the existence of aliens. To believe such merely through this information is an irrational and unjustified leap. Do you really think that the government does not have craft that the public is not aware of and that they would rather deny they had it then show their cards?

Abductees claim to have had first hand contact with aliens and perhaps they have. However, people claim to have first hand knowledge about gnomes, sea monsters and bigfoots. Should I believe something just because someone says it is so? I am not dismissing individuals accounts of what they claim happened as false or made-up, but a 'story' weither fact or fiction is not proof without evidence that I can experience.



posted on Jan, 26 2005 @ 03:25 PM
link   
What you’d REALLY have to believe to be a non-believer…

1. That in all of the vastness of space, with billions and billions of stars, and with billions and billions of planets (a little Sagan homage there, hehe…), that in all of that, not one other place than our little blue speck has produced a space-faring lifeform.
2. That millions of people, throughout history and throughout the world, and from cultures that had no exposure to pop culture, these people all report similar craft and beings, but it must all be in their head, or misidentification.
3. That Bluebook’s conclusions were correct, even though the former head of Bluebook states that many of the best cases went elsewhere, and that the mandate for the project was to debunk, not explain.
4. That the piles of documentation pointing to a government coverup and non-publicized interest in UFOs must all be forgeries.
5. That decorated military officers and high ranking Pentagon officials, etc. have all lied when they came out about their part in the coverup.
6. That the USAF explanation for Roswell is correct, and that a balloon project was classified for over half a century, and that the dummies, which weren’t involved with Mogul and weren’t even used until 5 years later in unrelated tests, explain the “bodies” seen by witnesses.
7. That a senior intel officer at one of the world’s most secure air bases, couldn’t tell a bunch of balsa wood and tin foil from a crashed craft.
8. That the overnight creation of the Air Force, CIA and reorganizing of the DoD right after Roswell, without any prior plans to do so, isn’t in any way surprising or suspicious.
9. That UFOs in Renaissance art are just symbolic and have nothing to do with alien phenomenon.
10. That the thousands of sightings by credible witnesses, such as military, pilots, policemen, even former US Presidents, are all simply misidentifications of ordinary things.
11. That the numerous examples of gun camera military footage are likewise misidentifications.
12. That abductees must all suffer from the same kind of mental disorder, and yet live perfectly functional lives otherwise.
13. That we went from horse and buggy to landing on the moon in a half century COMPLETELY on our own technical achievements, and that out of all the nations on Earth, such advancements largely occurred as a result of ONE nation’s inventiveness.
14. That the US government would devote decades of both public, and private study, to a phenomenon that was JUST misidentified birds, swamp gas, etc.

THOSE are the kinds of things you’d have to believe to be a non-believer…



posted on Jan, 26 2005 @ 04:00 PM
link   
Well, let's see where I stand. Believer or Non-believer (even though I do not like the lable believer because it implies a belief in everything.


Originally posted by Gazrok
What you’d REALLY have to believe to be a non-believer…


1. Believer

2. Non-believer
Aren't there reported to be many different shapes of UFOs? The further away something is don't many objects appear similar as they become blury?

3. Non-believer
Perhaps this was not the real intention of the project. Would not be the first time that the taxpayers money was used to divert they're attention.

4. Non-believer
I do not doubt that the government has massive cover-ups going on, but of what I have no proof. To assume that it is aliens is a leap of faith. Perhaps their dismissle of aliens is merely a cover-up of something else.

5. Non-believer
I can not base proof on something that I have not experienced personally. Perhaps the 'stories' are fact or lies or misinterpretation of what they experienced. All I know is I can not make a logical judgement without something more to go on then a claim.


6. Non-believer
Some of these are misleading answers. I do believe that there is a cover-up, but again that does not mean it is concerning aliens.

7. Non-believer
Just because it is a craft does not mean that it is alien. Cover-up, Yes! But what kind is unknown.

8. Non-believer
Nearly everything the government does is suspicious. Does not mean aliens have their tenticals in the pot.

9...10...11...

You are seeing the pattern here, right? I would love to believe that aliens have visited us, but logically I have no proof of it and thus can not rationally believe that they have. Just because there are UFOs and apparent cover-ups does not conclude that there are aliens involved. So I will wait patiently until rational proof is provided.

The Earth is not flat because someone claims it so because of their misjudgement/assumption of their visual perception; it is flat when they fall off the edge.



posted on Jan, 26 2005 @ 05:40 PM
link   
I am of the opinion that if and when then aliens show up it will be quite obvious and impossible to cover up. I don't see the point in travelling many light years only to fly around flashing lights and mutilating a few cows.

Also why the heck would an alien craft that is supposedly trying to not be seen be flying around with a bunch of lights flashing all over the place anyway? Doesn't make alot of sense to me.If there is some conspiracy between aliens and our governments where the aliens are trying to stay out of sight, why wouldn't they turn off the flashing lights? Make about as much sense as a screen door for a submarine.



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 06:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jonna
Well, let's see where I stand. Believer or Non-believer (even though I do not like the lable believer because it implies a belief in everything.


Originally posted by Gazrok
What you’d REALLY have to believe to be a non-believer…


5. Non-believer
I can not base proof on something that I have not experienced personally. Perhaps the 'stories' are fact or lies or misinterpretation of what they experienced. All I know is I can not make a logical judgement without something more to go on then a claim.



Y'know, I'd take this point by point with you but why bother? Some bright wag once said it is only the little things that gov't needs to lie about, because the really BIG things will be greeted with incredulity.

To post this answer as you di means you didn't even visit one of the links I provided..not the spirals nor to the belgian air force news conference with radar data provided..nor to the recent mexican air force video.
Or it means you do not know or are incapable of discerning the difference between a claim and hard physical, touchable and visible evidence.
More probably it is that you are content to be ignorant, as each and every line of your response leads me to believe...
But pack to your point #5...let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that a bona-fide UFO did appear inn your sky, over your backyard..and let's say it zoomed vertrtically so fast that you almost broke your neck trying to follow its flight-path..or let's say you even caught it on film.
Now how would you go about 'proving to a skeptic' that what you saw was genuine..or that you were genuine? Who would you go running to?
I'm just curious.

Every other point you 'rebut'with assumes that the gov is covering up something but it need not be aliens..
Again I despair at your powers of reasoning but you inadvertently prove my point..that if the gov wasa up to something on our behalf, testing new vehicles or weapons, all they'd have to do is say so IN ADVANCE so that the locals wouldn't worry themselves with speculations of ET's in the sky..and so people like you would feel perfectly safe at night.
Instead the excuses , explanations or denials come AFTER THE FACT...and that is not a cover story but a CYA story.

It also means that you assume, on some basic level, that we need weapons like this to defend ourselves against..what exactly..whom exactly?
The Russians? The Chinese? The N. Koreans?..Belgians & Mexicans?

I am also bewildered at the way humans use human reasons to explain 'alien motives'...like Skibum idea that if "aliens are trying to stay out of sight, why wouldn't they turn off their lights..."and not seeing the point of travelling all that distance just t o flash lights and mutilate cattle."

Well, first, something, indeed is mutilating our cattle..in ways we cannot duplicate. period. Not just American cattle..but cattle on every continent.
Now then, do you believ the farmers are doing this to their own cattle? For what possible reason? Would you hazard a guess on that please, becasue I am awfully curious.
I am also curious to know if you have any religious convictions one way or another..like do you at all believ the Bible and other similar 'holy texts'which go into great detail and emphasis about how cattle should be sacrificed and the blood used as offering to God... And would you hazard a guess as to whatever/whoever gave them the idea?

Again, the mutilated cattle are not merely 'claims'..it is hard evidence..Of what, you can be as free as me to speculate. Satanists? Hmmm...and using which tools exactly, to drain a full grown bull of all its blood without leaving a drop..and also corkscrewing the entrails out with some device or method absolutely beyond the ability of any forensic specialist to explain.
Not a claim, a fact.
I'd provide the [many] links if asked but something tells me you won't ask..since , as I said, you seem more than happy to dwell in smug, self-satisfied ignorance of the matter.

As for the gov probably covering up something, but why aliens..look at the craft ....what earthly purpose could you ascribe to the craft which hovered over brussells....

You say that to assume all the cover up has to do with aliens is a leap of faith..well your willingness to take the government at its word is an even greater leap of faith given the track record so far..the facts we know, the many lies we have caught them in.

-Sincerely
-Shai



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 08:19 AM
link   
I wouldn't go there with the cattle mutilations...

Personally, I've seen VERY little to connect them with UFOs. The blood draining is no mystery, neither are the tools and methods. And, several perps have been caught at it, with tools in hand, and even in the act. In many cases, predators are to blame, or a combination of the two (i.e. cow is mutilated, and then predators attack the carcass).

Same with crop circles....

Nothing that a few guys with some hours to kill, some sticks and rope, and a wire hook in a baseball cap, can't do....

Nor is any of the above needed. The FACTS speak for themselves.

FACT: The US government devoted many years to projects GRUDGE, SIGN, BLUEBOOK, and others to study the UFO phenomenon.

FACT: The US had the most advanced aircraft in the world at the time...still does.

CONCLUSION: Based on above fact. More advanced aircraft encountered therefore must have an origin not from this world.

FACT: The project leader for BLUEBOOK, Ed Ruppelt, has repeatedly gone on record as saying that the officers of the project were ordered to Debunk, not investigate the UFOs.

FACT: Something crashed at Roswell in July of 1947.

FACT: The US Army released a press release to the local paper stating that a crashed disc was recovered near Roswell, NM in July of 1947.

FACT: The USAF has released two different versions of events. The most recent, Roswell, Case Closed, contains glaring errors. First, they admit to the NEED to explain the accounts of "bodies" by citing that parachute dummies were what witnesses saw. Another fact, these dummies were NOT part of the Mogul project, the craft the USAF claims crashed. Another fact, these dummies weren't used until 5 years AFTER the Roswell crash. Yet another, there are NO records of a Mogul balloon being near the area on the dates in question, despite meticulous records of other launches and recoveries.

Even such FACTS though, are not PROOF, but if you can honestly tell me that they aren't sufficient EVIDENCE, to logically conclude that:

A: The government is hiding something.
B: That the "something" is UFO related.

Then I'm not sure where that logic is coming from.



posted on May, 23 2005 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
I wouldn't go there with the cattle mutilations...



so let me...
www.ob1.com...

www.lasvegassun.com...

just two of many which can be found at:
www.mysteries-megasite.com...

the idea that cattle mutilations have been explained satisfactorily is simply not correct....police, district attorneys and vetinary scientists have a raft of 'evidence' to which there is no theory..or should I say they refuse to believe the only theory that fits the evidence..because, they say, there is not enough 'proof'.

I find it less than coincidental that ancient star gods of early human myth had a thirst for two things..gold and the blood of cattle..don't you?
I mean..do you really think things have changed that much ?

;-)



posted on May, 23 2005 @ 12:59 PM
link   
Have I seen UFOs? Yes.
Have I seen a bunch of weird things I can't explain? Yes.

It's just the unknown, most people are afraid and come to their own conclusions with no infomation, they name them aliens, give them names, create theories. Some just refuse to belive anything other then they already know even exists.

We have to look at the evidence and look for proof, then come to conclusions.



posted on May, 23 2005 @ 06:30 PM
link   
For me, deciding whether or not to believe the UFO/ET existence ended when;
Upon my discharge from the Naval service, I was informed, by a close shipmate (he was in a very good position to know of such things), that "The UFO's are real, the whole thing about the UFO's is true" and "There are levels of secrecy above Top Secret".

The guy was nearly in tears.


I believe that he told me these things because he felt he had to tell someone. I was his best logical choice. I was literally on my way out, seabag in hand, so the revelation wasn't going any farther than the bulkhead in that compartment as far a he was concerned.

He had to get the weight of it off his chest, I am sure of it.

Believing is not easy, If one truly believes the UFO/ET existence then one also has to accept the fact that we have, all of us, been deceived.

The other big hurdle is the idea that ET's and God are not mutually exclusive.







 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join